City of Thibodaux Zoning Review - South Central Planning ...

Thibodaux Zoning Review 2010going to get public comments, does anybody from the public want to address this. Mr. GaryPalmer, 314 Melrose Drive came forward and stated what about places like garden homes wherethey’re specific homes but they pretty much fill up the lot. Mr. Breaud stated that is different zonesand different rules apply to that they can build up against the lot line, they’ve got zero lot lines onthose specific applications. Mr. Jeff Donnes came forward and stated Mr. Chairman whathappened when you are in an R-2 or R-3 and you’re trying to do either residential or commercialuses, you’re eliminating or you’re limiting what you can do with these places both ways I mean it isjust, you need to use more of the land than anything else with the value of these things coming up.Mr. Breaud stated do we want to allow houses to build closer than five foot side line offsets, I don’tthink people want that especially the houses that are existing now to allow their neighbor to comebuild up against their property line or decrease the front lot or decrease the back lot when thesubdivision has already been established and everything in that other subdivision is complying tothat rule or is non-conforming and it is grandfathered in. Some other issues that we are gettingready to discuss in this thing right here is in non-conforming uses about changing the percentageof damaged areas such as if we get a hurricane if we would increase the 50% damage to 75%which would allow them to continue having the grandfather clause in so in some of those casesthat would apply that they could build back what they have now. That is just my opinion on someof that, building something too big on a lot I think in newer subdivisions that developers should be,if the market demand is for bigger houses well the developer should be creating bigger lots to fitthose houses on. Mr. Donnes replied well that is the question of money, the market is going todrive those issues. Mr. Breaud stated I realize that but if they can drive a bigger house they candrive a bigger lot. Mr. Donnes stated look at Rienzi, Rienzi is sitting on 100 x 100 lots and that isfine, Rienzi says I only want you to have a minimum of 1,400 square feet, it is not Rienzi that isbuilding 3,000 or 4,000 square foot living houses on those lots, it is the individual, it is the publicsaying this is what I want. Again, government is sitting back there going no, we don’t want you tohave it and all these developers are doing is say, listen here is the minimum but you’re going toeliminate the maximums. My thinking is let the public decide a lot of time what they want in thesesubdivisions. Mr. Breaud stated we have that process in place, we have a Board of Adjustmentsthat you can go in front of the Board of Adjustments to get a variance for certain things and that iswhat that board is set up for. When we’re talking about setting ordinances right now, we’re tryingto set an ordinance city wide which pertaining to everything, existing lots of record, new lots ofrecord, new developments and everything so there is not one size that is going to fit all. Mr.Donnes relied I understand. Mr. Breaud stated and that is why that Board of Adjustments wascreated to grant those variances in hardship cases and it doesn’t matter. So right now it is aphilosophy yes, do you want to give up on everything, you know like Mr. Belanger said do you wanta nice aesthetic looking area or do you want to just crowd everything on a lot. Now we’ve got area,we’ve got townhouse ordinances, we’ve got these other ordinances for condos that allow zero lotline, but when somebody is buying in those areas they know that they’re going to have somebodyup against the property line but they knew that going in. Right now if we have peoplegrandfathered in and they bought a house and have been living there 30 years and they knew therules at that time was they wasn’t going to have anybody within 10 feet of their property line andnow we’re getting ready to change the rules and it is going to open up a whole can of worms forthose people that are existing there now, that’s my feelings on it. Does anybody have anyquestions for Mr. Donnes, do you have any more comments, Mr. Donnes. Mr. Donnes replied myonly concern I looked at Jake’s development over here and he’s got 40 foot wide lots and 50 footwide lots and they’re going to be building big houses in there and they’re going to cover 60 to 70%of those lots with structure. Now what are you going to do with a development like that. Mr.Breaud stated those rules were set up going in, everybody knows, buy a lot in that developmentthat those rules exist and they can cover those lots and they can build close. Mr. Donnes repliedbut you’re not going to infringe on those subdivisions. Mr. Breaud replied the rules are set on that,that is a T.N.D. District. Mr. Donnes replied well that is the only T.N.D., now let’s take that, Rienzihas got the same subdivision but because they’re not a T.N.D. you are going to impose your will onthem, it is the same subdivision, it is not a governmental entity, they’ve got a subdivision set up butyet you all won’t let them do what you are going to let a T.N.D. do, correct? Mr. Breaud stated thatis because it was set up that way in the district, we’re not proposing to change anything right now,it is being presented to us to make a change and we have to vote tonight on whether we want toallow this change or deny the change on the recommendation to the Council. Mr. Donnes statedand you are going to make the final decision tonight. Mr. Breaud stated we’re going to make arecommendation to the Council tonight. Mr. Kevin Belanger came forward and stated just onething I guess for clarification purposes, we want you and the public to understand that what we’rerecommending is not more restrictive but what it is doing it is bringing clarity and allowing thePlanning Department to understand what is going to be considered lot coverage. The way waswritten before it was just 50% so that was including the dwelling, the structures, all theappurtenances that were on the property and that only had to total 50%, am I correct Errol? Mr.Price replied correct. Mr. Belanger stated so what we’re recommending to you is almost like amiddle ground of what is being requested by some tonight and I think what the PlanningCommission wants to head towards. The basis of creating a maximum lot is to continue to bringunity or consistency to the neighborhood, without it you will not have it and we’re providing at aminimum of 20% open area and that is key in a residential area - that is all I have to say. Mr.Breaud stated I definitely think we need to enhance the definition of it, Errol we spoke about thislast month and Errol’s definition or interpretation of the code, they didn’t have a definition but hewas only using the structure itself, not any side structure or concrete driveway so we definitely380